The Grand Chamber judgment of the ECtHR in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye was the first deci-sion to call into question, on such a scale, the legal basis of the convictions for membership of an organisation handed down after 15 July. The ECtHR held that deriving all the constituent ele-ments of the offence from the use of ByLock breached the principle of legality in criminal law, and that the defence's inability to challenge this evidence breached the right to a fair trial. The Demirhan and Others judgment confirmed that the problem was systemic, while the Yasak judgment showed that the same criteria would also apply to convictions based on evidence other than ByLock. Giving effect to these judgments is an obligation owed not only to the applicants who came before the ECtHR but also to the very large number of persons in a similar situation.

Within the domestic legal order, the first addressee of this obligation is the Constitutional Court. The individual application procedure was established to protect Convention rights at national level and was designed as a remedy that must be exhausted before applying to the ECtHR. For this reason, the decisions delivered by the Constitutional Court after Yalçınkaya are the most important indicator of the extent to which that judgment has taken effect in domestic law.

The present study examines, from this perspective, 228 decisions delivered by the Constitution-al Court between 1 October 2023 and 22 October 2026. Rather than summarising the decisions one by one, it identifies the patterns of reasoning to which the Court has repeatedly resorted in its violation and rejection decisions, and supports each finding with the paragraph number of the relevant decision. The aim is to enable the reader to verify every assessment against its source.

The title of the study captures the picture that emerges. The Constitutional Court found a large number of violations during this period. However, most of these findings remained confined to procedural safeguards; in almost all of the ByLock cases the legality complaint was either left unexamined or rejected; and the redress afforded amounted to no more than a retrial that does not prevent the same conviction from being handed down again. Although there is an appearance of redress, the violation identified by the ECtHR persists.

This study has not been prepared as a general critique of the Constitutional Court, but as a read-ing of the Court's own decisions and its own principles against the ECtHR's criteria. Indeed, a significant proportion of the inconsistencies identified stem from the Court's failure to apply in its rejection decisions the very criteria it uses in its violation decisions. This shows that case-law consistent with the Yalçınkaya and Yasak judgments is achievable within the Court's own juris-prudential heritage.

The study is intended to serve as a useful resource for lawyers and applicants dealing with these cases, for academics, and for the Committee of Ministers, which supervises the execution of the Yalçınkaya group of judgments.